6.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Skopje.
7.  The applicant worked as a teacher in a high school in Skopje. In December 2000 he was declared redundant and assigned to work partly in the school library, under threat of being dismissed if he did not comply with this decision. On 15 December 2000 the applicant signed an agreement, which specified his duties in the school library. Since the applicant failed to comply with the agreement, on 20 February 2001 the director of the school adopted another decision under which the applicant was assigned, again, to work in the school library. The applicant expressly refused to comply with that decision.
8.  On 23 February 2001 the applicant was laid off for non-fulfilment of duties and failure to comply with working hours. On 7 March 2001 another decision was rendered, acknowledging that the applicant had abused the right to sick leave. On 29 March 2001 the school’s board dismissed the applicant’s objection to the decision of 23 February 2001 (“the dismissal decisions”).
9.  On 18 April 2001 the applicant brought a civil action before the Skopje Court of First Instance (“the first-instance court”) seeking revocation of the dismissal decisions. He further sought that the defendant be ordered to launch redundancy proceedings (постапка за прогласување на технолошки вишок) and to pay him certain work-related allowances.
10.  After three adjournments, on 28 September 2001 the first-instance court rendered a partial decision (делумна пресуда) dismissing the applicant’s claim for revocation of the dismissal decisions and initiation of redundancy proceedings. Having regard to the facts of the case described above, the court found that the applicant’s dismissal had been lawful and that the request for redundancy proceedings was outside the jurisdiction of the courts. The question of payment of certain work-related allowances was to be decided later. On 8 April 2002 the first-instance court rendered another decision, by which it rectified typographical error in its decision of 28 September 2001, namely the date of adoption of the dismissal decision.
11.  On 13 December 2001 and 22 April 2002 respectively the applicant lodged two separate appeals against the first-instance court’s decisions. The appeals were forwarded to the defendant on 25 January and 5 June 2002 respectively. On 12 February and 11 June 2002 respectively the defendant submitted two separate observations, the first regarding the first-instance court’s decision of 28 September 2001, and the second regarding the rectifying decision of 8 April 2002, in which it summarised the relevant facts and requested that the Court of Appeal uphold the first-instance court’s decision. It further consented to the court’s decision to correct the technical errors made in its decision of 28 September 2001. Both submissions were forwarded to the Skopje Court of Appeal for consideration, but not to the applicant.
12.  On 13 November 2002 the Skopje Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeals and upheld the first-instance court’s decisions. Paraphrasing the version of events established as fact by the first-instance court, the Court of Appeal found no errors of fact or law. The court did not make any reference to the defendant’s written observations submitted in reply to the applicant’s appeals, apart from stating that:
“In the observations submitted in reply the defendant requested that the [applicant’s] appeal be dismissed as ill-founded”.
13.  On 23 December 2002 the applicant lodged an appeal with the Supreme Court on points of law in which he complained, inter alia, about the first-instance court’s failure to communicate to him the defendant’s reply to his appeals.
14.  By a decision of 27 March 2003, which was served on the applicant on 23 December 2003, the Supreme Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal on points of law, finding no grounds to depart from the established facts and reasons given by the lower courts. It further stated:
“This court examined the other complaints raised in the appeal and finds that they do no constitute grounds for the court to make a different decision.”
15.  In the meantime, the proceedings before the first-instance court concerning the payment of allowances had continued (see paragraph 10 above). Nine hearings were fixed between 24 February 2004 and 7 November 2005 of which none was postponed at the request of the applicant. On the latter date, the first-instance court ruled partly in favour of the applicant ordering the defendant to pay some of the allowances claimed. On 22 June 2006 the Skopje Court of Appeal upheld this decision. The decision was served on the applicant on 15 July 2006.
16.  On 12 August 2006 the applicant lodged an appeal on points of law, which the Supreme Court, by a decision of 23 January 2008, rejected as inadmissible. The court held that the claim concerned payment of pecuniary allowances to which the statutory threshold specified in section 368 (2) of the then valid Civil Proceedings Act (see paragraph 18 below) applied. It found that the applicant had not specified the claim value in the lawsuit and that the amount of court fees paid by him had corresponded to a claim value lower than the statutory threshold. On 29 February 2009 this decision was served on the applicant.